The unanimous decision by the House committee investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol to refer Donald Trump to the Justice Department for four potential criminal charges is a setback for the former President, who has announced his re-election bid for 2024, and could turn U.S. politics more turbulent. The committee, appointed by the outgoing Democrats-controlled House and made up of seven Democrats and two Republicans, alleges that Mr. Trump disseminated false allegations about the 2020 election results and provoked his supporters to launch violence. It recommended Mr. Trump’s prosecution for incitement of an insurrection; conspiracy to defraud the country; obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress (handover of power), and conspiracy to make false statements. Mr. Trump’s troubles are only growing. Earlier this month, the Trump Organization, his family business, was convicted of criminal tax fraud. The FBI is probing Mr. Trump’s handling of classified documents. In Georgia, Mr. Trump and his aides are under investigation for allegedly trying to overturn election results. Besides, the Justice Department has appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, to investigate the January 6 riots and Mr. Trump’s alleged role in it.
The House committee’s criminal referral does not have any legal weight as Congress cannot interfere with the Justice Department’s decisions. Attorney-General Merrick Garland can make an independent assessment of the referral and the evidence cited in the panel’s report and then take a decision. There is no doubt that Mr. Trump’s response to the January 6 riots was utterly unpresidential and gravely irresponsible. The committee found that he was in the Oval Office watching the riot on the TV, and refused to issue a statement asking his supporters to disperse. While this behaviour, along with his refusal to immediately accept the election results, makes him morally incapacitated to hold the high office again, the question before Mr. Garland is of having enough evidence to prosecute Mr. Trump. On the other side, the former President, who still commands a loyal base, would use the criminal referral by a Democrats-majority committee as a partisan “witch hunt”, deepening the political cleavage in American society. Prosecuting a former President who is running again (probably against the incumbent) would set a precedent with deep ramifications. Given that getting a conviction would require a unanimous jury, any move to indict Mr. Trump without sufficient evidence could be counter-productive. That is why the referral is a double-edged sword. Perhaps Mr. Garland should wait for the Justice Department’s own probe into January 6 before taking a final call on how he should deal with the Trump problem.
To read this editorial in Tamil, click here.
To read this editorial in Hindi, click here.
